GORDON:One thing for sure, it isn't Obama's fault, because nothing is ever his fault. He's only the President.

Well, the "red line" crap IS his fault, no doubt about it.

Of course, the neocons have been awfully quiet lately...why, just last year, with Libya and Egypt, they were bragging about how their invasion of Iraq was finally spreading peace, love, and democracy across the Middle East...

There are so many really great reasons for Americans to mind our own business and stay the hell out of the Middles East that a single thread doesn't have space to list them all.But the dilemma of having to choose to side with either genocidal tyrants or homicidal maniacs is another good one.

"In France, people don't like face veils so they passed laws against them," he said. "It's the same thing here. It's our right to push for the laws we want."

Guy does have a point... it's their country, let them fight over it.We just need to stay out of it given our recent and ongoing history of wars in the middle east.

Although by this point, if we don't get involved and the rebels win, the hard-liner Al Qaeda based groups will just use that to push their anti-western theme even further, and If Assad wins it'll be business as usual except for the fact that after Syria wouldn't even put up the false facade of 'cooperation' with the United States or the West, for the simple fact that we got involved in the first place.

Either way we're screwed, both sides suck... so we should just let them duke it out and cut our losses, just sucks for the civilians caught in the middle.

micuu:Because propping up power-mad dictators has worked out so well for the US in the past....

Well, Assad did actually agree to have democratic elections in the new constitution that he signed last year. His only catch was that he would also be a candidate. This was unacceptable to the rebels and to their sponsors (such as the definitely-not-democratic royals and princes of Saudi Arabia, who are supported by the US by the way), so the civil war drags on.

I don't know, seems to me like the obvious solution would be for the international community to send in observers to ensure that the free and fair elections that Assad already promised are actually free and fair. If the people decide to vote for Assad, so be it.

I don't understand why the West is sabotaging Syrians' democratic rights by insisting that only the rebels can be candidates in any election, and actively preventing a peace process.

"What has happened here is the president drew red lines about chemical weapons, thereby giving a green light to Bashar Assad to do anything short of that."

So what is the limit of what the United States, in your judgment, should do to put a limit on Assad?

"Well, as I said, a safe zone of arming the rebels, making sure that we help with the refugees. And be prepared with an international force to go in and secure these stocks of chemical and perhaps biological weapons."

Hobodeluxe:GORDON: One thing for sure, it isn't Obama's fault, because nothing is ever his fault. He's only the President.

So explain to us then how this is Obama's fault then.

Because this has dragged on for more than 2 years (as per article). If Obama had done something in the beginning the formerly secular opposition could have formed a government instead of being radicalized. That was the point of the article, what was secular is now radical. Perfect example of what doing nothing results in.

Congratulations on your victory, and the unification/secession of your nation. If you plan on living to see tomorrow or beyond, I better not hear a farking PEEP come out of that shiathole you call a country.

PunGent:GORDON: One thing for sure, it isn't Obama's fault, because nothing is ever his fault. He's only the President.

Well, the "red line" crap IS his fault, no doubt about it.

Of course, the neocons have been awfully quiet lately...why, just last year, with Libya and Egypt, they were bragging about how their invasion of Iraq was finally spreading peace, love, and democracy across the Middle East...

So you are choosing to cometely ignore the administration's marketing of the arab spring and go with blaming the gop. Kudos.

MyRandomName:PunGent: GORDON: One thing for sure, it isn't Obama's fault, because nothing is ever his fault. He's only the President.

Well, the "red line" crap IS his fault, no doubt about it.

Of course, the neocons have been awfully quiet lately...why, just last year, with Libya and Egypt, they were bragging about how their invasion of Iraq was finally spreading peace, love, and democracy across the Middle East...

So you are choosing to cometely ignore the administration's marketing of the arab spring and go with blaming the gop. Kudos.

PunGent:Of course, the neocons have been awfully quiet lately...why, just last year, with Libya and Egypt, they were bragging about how their invasion of Iraq was finally spreading peace, love, and democracy across the Middle East...

No, at least not anyone with sense. Go back and check the threads. In Egypt, Libs were giddy about the people revolting against tyranny. Conservatives that understand how the world really works were telling them the devil they don't know will be worse than the devil they have now.

In Libya the only real hope was that they all kill each other, but again the left was fully behind the 'freedom fighters'. We even conducted combat operations on their behalf - and got thanked by having our ambassador murdered.

The Arab spring worked out pretty much exactly how conservatives thought it would.

Of course, America has compounded this concern by refusing to properly aid secular opposition forces, i.e. the initial dissidents composed primarily of army defectors. Left with no alternative of outside support beyond the Gulf States, we're now ... shocked ... that the leading members of the anti-Assad forces are Islamist? It's almost as if people would choose not being massacred by Assad's paramilitary thugs or blown apart by ballistic missiles over our timid "non-lethal" aid.

Ted Kennedy's Brain Tumor:Of course, America has compounded this concern by refusing to properly aid secular opposition forces, i.e. the initial dissidents composed primarily of army defectors. Left with no alternative of outside support beyond the Gulf States, we're now ... shocked ... that the leading members of the anti-Assad forces are Islamist? It's almost as if people would choose not being massacred by Assad's paramilitary thugs or blown apart by ballistic missiles over our timid "non-lethal" aid.

onyxruby:Hobodeluxe: GORDON: One thing for sure, it isn't Obama's fault, because nothing is ever his fault. He's only the President.

So explain to us then how this is Obama's fault then.

Because this has dragged on for more than 2 years (as per article). If Obama had done something in the beginning the formerly secular opposition could have formed a government instead of being radicalized. That was the point of the article, what was secular is now radical. Perfect example of what doing nothing results in.

We have been supporting them. But you must realize that we also have to make sure the stuff gets to the right people. If we sent in arms in the beginning and they turned out to be AQ then you'd be screaming about us arming AQ. Do you think we should have put our own boots on the ground there at the beginning? Should we have taken on the Syrian Army for the rebels? Were you wiling to support that level of intervention with your tax dollars and the blood of your fellow citizens?

JustGetItRight:In Egypt, Libs were giddy about the people revolting against tyranny. Conservatives that understand how the world really works were telling them the devil they don't know will be worse than the devil they have now.

onyxruby:Because this has dragged on for more than 2 years (as per article). If Obama had done something in the beginning the formerly secular opposition could have formed a government instead of being radicalized. That was the point of the article, what was secular is now radical. Perfect example of what doing nothing results in.

Fark it. Doing nothing gets us this and it gets us Darfur and Rwanda. Doing something with our military gets Iraq and Afghanistan. Doing something without the military gets us Zimbabwe. And once in a while things go fairly well, but only AFTER we fark up (Balkans, maybe Iraq).

Mrtraveler01:randomjsa: Based on our Egypt, Lybia, and Iran strategy, we just have to be sure that whomever hates Israel the most gets to stay in power.

Yes...we should've just totally went into Egypt and helped Murbarak out by wiping out the protesters in Tahir Square.

That's what you wanted right?

Sure, why not? It would have worked out better than giving you what you wanted, the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of Egypt.

/which was predictable, after what came after the Shah was overthrown in Iran and Batista was overthrown in Brazil//gee, it's almost like some violent protesters actually need to be oppressed, in order to maintain even the pretense of civilization///too bad the people that are going to make the choice can't even tell which protesters are peaceful and which ones are violent any more (hint: the Tea Party is peaceful)

Mrtraveler01:Yes...we should've just totally went into Egypt and helped Murbarak out by wiping out the protesters in Tahir Square.

That's what you wanted right?

Who's talking about wanting anything? We could have cluster bombed and napalmed the place and we'd be in the same situation. I'm talking about the totally predictable outcome of the uprising. The left thought the young were rising up to overthrow oppression when all they were doing was opening the door for an even worse oppressor. Anwar Sadat was murdered largely because he had the gall to make peace with Israel. Those same Islamic groups hated Mubarak as bad or worse because he actually increased Egypt's ties to Egypt and the west and those groups play the long game. When uprising started, it was a 100% guarantee that they'd position themselves to fill the power vacuum and they're doing a pretty good job of grasping the opportunity.

MyRandomName:PunGent: GORDON: One thing for sure, it isn't Obama's fault, because nothing is ever his fault. He's only the President.

Well, the "red line" crap IS his fault, no doubt about it.

Of course, the neocons have been awfully quiet lately...why, just last year, with Libya and Egypt, they were bragging about how their invasion of Iraq was finally spreading peace, love, and democracy across the Middle East...

So you are choosing to cometely ignore the administration's marketing of the arab spring and go with blaming the gop. Kudos.

Well, I don't know about that - but the question deserves asking: If neocons and Republicans hate Jimmy Carter so bad, how come they have subscribed to his foreign policy model in the Middle east for the past forty years?

Hobodeluxe:GORDON: One thing for sure, it isn't Obama's fault, because nothing is ever his fault. He's only the President.

So explain to us then how this is Obama's fault then.

Providing material aid to Islamic rebels trying to overthrow a secular govt? Supporting other nations in doing the same? I think it's dumb to lay it all at his feet, it's not like he waved his magic Obama wand and caused all this, but when our country gets involved in shiat like this, you better believe the PRESIDENT bears responsibility.

I have supported a more active support role for the rebels, but reading this article and thread has convinced me that staying completely out of it is the best idea. No sarcasm. Sometimes people do make compelling points.

DeadPuppySociety:Hobodeluxe: GORDON: One thing for sure, it isn't Obama's fault, because nothing is ever his fault. He's only the President.

So explain to us then how this is Obama's fault then.

Providing material aid to Islamic rebels trying to overthrow a secular govt? Supporting other nations in doing the same? I think it's dumb to lay it all at his feet, it's not like he waved his magic Obama wand and caused all this, but when our country gets involved in shiat like this, you better believe the PRESIDENT bears responsibility.

"The difference between right-wing and left-wing interventionists is the illusions they harbor. In spite of experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, right-wing interventionists continue to believe that the United States and Europe have the power not only to depose regimes but also to pacify the affected countries and create Western-style democracies. The left believes that there is such a thing as a neutral intervention -- one in which the United States and Europe intervene to end a particular evil, and with that evil gone, the country will now freely select a Western-style constitutional democracy. Where the right-wing interventionists cannot absorb the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq, the left-wing interventionists cannot absorb the lessons of Libya."

Tatterdemalian:Sure, why not? It would have worked out better than giving you what you wanted, the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of Egypt.

Yes, allowing Mubarak to kill his own people for protesting would've been a better option.

/rolls eyes

JustGetItRight:I'm talking about the totally predictable outcome of the uprising. The left thought the young were rising up to overthrow oppression when all they were doing was opening the door for an even worse oppressor. Anwar Sadat was murdered largely because he had the gall to make peace with Israel. Those same Islamic groups hated Mubarak as bad or worse because he actually increased Egypt's ties to Egypt and the west and those groups play the long game. When uprising started, it was a 100% guarantee that they'd position themselves to fill the power vacuum and they're doing a pretty good job of grasping the opportunity.

micuu:Because propping up power-mad dictators has worked out so well for the US in the past....

THIS^^^. Not to mention, the longer we prop them up, the more extreme an opposition it takes to overthrow them, and the more they hate us afterwards (see: Iran). Eventually, the only people willing to oppose the genocidal dictator are, by definition, those driven by absolute, fundamentalists willing to die for their beliefs. The situation almost by definition rules out the possibility of reasonableness, because a reasonable person would say "this totally sucks, but I'm not willing to strap an explosive vest on and walk up to a military checkpoint over it".

At least this time there's a chance that whatever flavor of whackjob takes charge afterwards will note that we didn't support the former dictator, unlike the Russians...

Obama is doing exactly the right thing: giving the rebels just enough support that they can keep fighting but not enough for them to win. The more Islamists kill one another the fewer there are to kill the rest of us.

jso2897:There are so many really great reasons for Americans to mind our own business and stay the hell out of the Middles East that a single thread doesn't have space to list them all.But the dilemma of having to choose to side with either genocidal tyrants or homicidal maniacs is another good one.

Why can't we have both?

We should kiss and make up with AQ. Give them a few nukes as a coming out present.

Why doesn't Assad just turn their religion against them? State he's going to burn a thousand korans in the city square and when the army of derka derka brigade shows up, detonate a series of chain linked bombs wiping out the area. Give his troops armor made of pages from the koran so if the Jihadist shoot them, they're shooting the koran.

JustGetItRight:In Libya the only real hope was that they all kill each other, but again the left was fully behind the 'freedom fighters'.We even conducted combat operations on their behalf - and got thanked by having our ambassador murdered.

Libya is a mixed bag. There are people happy to be free of Qaddafi, people frustrated it took the U.S. aid, and people who supported Qaddafi. Benghazi wasn't a Libyan government op, it was an action taken by a strong opposition group in a divided county.

Screw em. Let them kill each other. Either way we side we are screwed, at least by doing nothing we can save some money and lives. Or we can just give every man, woman and child there a gun to speed it up.

I don't think there's anything the US could have done that would change the outcome at all. I'm simply pointing out the fantasy of thinking a popular uprising in Egypt (and Syria) will end in anything other than another dictator that will probably be more oppressive than the last.

HotWingConspiracy:randomjsa: Based on our Egypt, Lybia, and Iran strategy, we just have to be sure that whomever hates Israel the most gets to stay in power.

Bibi needs a reminder who keeps him fed now and then.

I swear the US or at least the US MIC is similar to The Madarin in IronMan 3 where we play both sides for profit. Hype the paranoid, sell offensive weapons and defensive weapons to both sides and always make sure we're the main supplier.

I mean the US has ALWAYS pledge unwavering support to Israel and it's security YET we continue to sell arms not only to them but also to the very nations who deep down hate them with their guts.

SuperNinjaToad:HotWingConspiracy: randomjsa: Based on our Egypt, Lybia, and Iran strategy, we just have to be sure that whomever hates Israel the most gets to stay in power.

Bibi needs a reminder who keeps him fed now and then.

I swear the US or at least the US MIC is similar to The Madarin in IronMan 3 where we play both sides for profit. Hype the paranoid, sell offensive weapons and defensive weapons to both sides and always make sure we're the main supplier.

I mean the US has ALWAYS pledge unwavering support to Israel and it's security YET we continue to sell arms not only to them but also to the very nations who deep down hate them with their guts.

(FYI - Israel became a close US ally only AFTER they kicked major ass in the 1967 war and proved to the United States that they are a powerful ally versus the Soviet influence in the region as well as that they can provide military intelligence as well as newly researched technologies).

Only if you are fighting for your own survival! ... otherwise there is a choice C: Stay out of it and let them two fight it out themselves!!

You can either be a driving force in international affairs or be driven by them. Isolationism,even with no direct interests at stake, has never worked out well for us going all the way back to Jefferson and The Embargo Act.

Foreign policy abhors a vacuum and if we are not there somebody else will step in that may not have our interests at heart.

In case anybody is unclear as to what's going down in Syria right now, here's the cliff notes:

It all started during the Arab Spring in 2011, when protesters jumped on the bandwagon and began demonstrating against Assad. He cracked down, disappearing people, torturing them, attacking protest marches, and basically running down the checklist of "The Dictator's Guide to Violent Repression of Dissent". He forgot the most important box, however: "Make Sure the Army is On Your Side" and when the military was sent in to beat heads, lots of them defected and joined the opposition. It's about this time (end of July, 2011) that disaffected army officers formed the Free Syrian Army and we've got an actual civil war on our hands.

From the end of July through the rest of summer, protests against Assad continued, with crackdowns becoming ever more violent. The rebels marshalled their forces, however, and began military operations that fall, starting in the northern part of the country. Diplomatic pressure from outside the country then began to increase, with the Arab League trying to get both sides to the negotiating table. They took their crack in November 2011, and pretty much failed, although they did manage to revoke Assad's membership. Fighting continued, now with tanks and the like rolling, and the UN took a crack, sending in Kofi Annan around April, 2012 to negotiate a cease-fire. That also fell apart, and they're still fighting.

To give you a quick rundown of the military side, it helps to analogize the western part of Syria to the west coast of the US (although most of these cities aren't actually ports). Going from south to north, you have Daraa (Tijuana), Jasir (San Diego), Damascus (L.A.), Homs (San Francisco), Aleppo (Portland, although further east), and Azaz (Seattle). Fighting started around Homs and Damascus in late 2011 and into the summer of 2012, but has recently (winter 2012) shifted to Aleppo as well.

There's been a few notable incidents as the war has continued, like the loyalist forces shooting down a Turkish F-4, SCUD attacks, cluster bombing, and various terror attacks and assassinations, but fighting has basically continued nonstop. Rebel forces have been doing a lot of the winning, capturing some military bases and weapons in strategic areas.

Current status is a little murky, but it's clear that the opposition controls large portions of the northern part of the country. The military opposition is loosely made up of the FSA (ex-military defectors) and various Islamist militant groups, like Jabhat al-Nusra mentioned in TFA. Political organization of the opposition started as the Syrian National Council, now expanded into the Syrian National Coalition. It's been recognized as the legitimate government by lots of foreign countries, including members of the Arab League and NATO. It's a government-in-exile, meeting in Cairo, Istanbul, and Qatar. Current president is Moaz al-Khatib (although he's making noise about stepping down) and PM is Ghassan Hitto.

So now you're up to date. The rebels in Syria are in control of a bit over half of the country and are currently fighting against loyalist bastions in the west. The loyalists have their backs against the wall, but are still being propped up by Russia and some say Iran. The main Islamist groups are basically out-of-town mercs who've come streaming in through Iraq, Jordan, and Turkey to kick the crap out of the Ba'athist loyalists, while there's still a core of ex-military defectors running the Free Syrian Army. In December, 2012, it was reorganized under the nominal control of Riad al-Assad and the actual control of Salim Idris, with two-thirds of the new command coming from the Muslim Brotherhood. Other rebel forces like al-Nusra and Ahrar Al-Sham were not invited and are under separate C&C.

It's a big tangled mess over there and the US would do well to stay out of it. Ideally, I'd like to see a UN/NATO blockade/no fly zone, but Russia will stomp and scream if it even looks like that's an option. The rebels are winning, it'll just take them time. Unless Russia goes whole hog and drops in a battalion of armor or something, Assad's days are numbered. If the US pokes its nose in now, it'll only cause difficulties among the rebels. Far better to handle thing thing the same way we handled Egypt - keep out of it until somebody gets to the top of the heap, then shake 'em by the hand and welcome them to the table. Picking winners in the middle east is what's gotten us in so many messes already.

JustGetItRight:Mrtraveler01: And what should the US have done instead?

I don't think there's anything the US could have done that would change the outcome at all. I'm simply pointing out the fantasy of thinking a popular uprising in Egypt (and Syria) will end in anything other than another dictator that will probably be more oppressive than the last.

Sadly that how most of these revolutions work, Cuba, most of Africa, Nicaragua in the 70s etc Sometimes you get the impression that people realy don't wnat the burdens of freedom just a different jailer. Thorw enough free stuff theri way liek Venezuela and they will even help forge theirown shacklesThe Russians have had two shots at freedom- 1917 and 1991 and they really don't seem to have gotten the hang of it. Belarus is another example.The French Revolution ended up with Napoleon coming to power and if not for the greatness in character of Geroge Washington ours could have gone the same way instead of the gradual decline

JustGetItRight:PunGent: Of course, the neocons have been awfully quiet lately...why, just last year, with Libya and Egypt, they were bragging about how their invasion of Iraq was finally spreading peace, love, and democracy across the Middle East...

No, at least not anyone with sense. Go back and check the threads. In Egypt, Libs were giddy about the people revolting against tyranny. Conservatives that understand how the world really works were telling them the devil they don't know will be worse than the devil they have now.

In Libya the only real hope was that they all kill each other, but again the left was fully behind the 'freedom fighters'. We even conducted combat operations on their behalf - and got thanked by having our ambassador murdered.

The Arab spring worked out pretty much exactly how conservatives thought it would.

Which is why I specified NEO conservatives. Haven't seen a REAL conservative in office in ages.

We took their land. We took their natural resources. We kicked them when they were down.

If the Native American's could do the same thing nobody would blame them.

If your argument is that the American Indian tribes did not take sides and fight over land you fail at history-badly.

Why was Cortez successfull in gaining other tribes as allies against the Aztecs? It was not because the Aztecs created their empire out of groups hugs and encounter group discussions with other triibes.

The Wampanoag Confederation welcomed and assisted the Pilgrims not out of compassion and generosity The Wampanoag were looking for allies to help them defend themselves against their long time and more numerous enemy the Narragansett (SP?) alliance in their territorial disputes. Notice a theme? Confederations and Alliances against other tribes, almost has bad as those evil white guys. Even if you were "to give back land" to the Indians they would be back at each others throats fighting over who had original ownership

The American Indians were doing the same thing to each other long before the evil white guys showed up and the tribes even aligned themselves with various groups of white guys - French and India War, Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, the Idnian Wars.

The American Indians were not a bunch of peaceful groups sitting around the campfires singing their version Kumbayah. The Great Indian War and Trading path (Seneca Trail) was not called The Great Indian peacefull co-existence and trading path for a reason. They were already well versed in war, genocide and slavery before the evil white guys showed up with human sacrifice and cannibalism thrown in by some. Tisquantum (AKA Squanto) was a Wampanoag slave. Sacagawea, a Shoshone, was a captive of the Minnetarees before being sold to a French guy.

So do I feel bad about the American Indians collective second place finish in the North American wars- Not anymore than I feel bad about what the Romans, Vikings or Huns did. If they had the means you can better be sure the American Indians would have attempted to do the same to Europe .

What is a tradgedy is the failure to assimilate the American Indians into society. Instead they were stuck on reservations (might as well call them low income housing projects because the effects are the same) with very corrupt tribal governments and being raised under a culture of victimzation. Hard to improve your lot in life if you constantly see yourself as a victim.